I remember looking through old threads and seeing one named "An Anarchist Critique of Anarcho-Statism" or something of the sort. The first response was from a user named "Ricky James Moore II", I don't know if he still posts here. I'd like to quote his response, as I think it's a good answer to anarcho communists/syndicalists/chomskyites.

"Whatever, contractarian-propertarian capitalism; call it what you want. I don't have any desire to hold 'anarchism' like some game of 'King of the Hill'; you want the stupid word, use it, it's associated with more crackpots and imbeciles than anyone worth a damn. I'll take Henry Clay Frick over Emma Goldman any day of the week and any time of the day. I'd rather be owned by Rockefeller than live in a 'commune' that only recognizes 'occupancy' ownership, and I don't have a damn bit of problem with shooting any such crazies who try to 'homestead' my house because I'm an absentee landlord."

Anarchy comes from the greek meaning no rulers. The concept of a society without rulers was around way before the english word anarchism or the people that "real" communists claim invented anarchism were around. Just because certain people wrote about anti-capitalism and called it anarchism does not mean that capitalists can not be anarchists. The word anarchism has a lot of meaning in modern society and most people see it as chaos. Most people do not even understand it as anarcho capitalism or even anticapitalist "real" communism.

I fail to see how being sexist or racist is not compatible with being an anarchist. He just works off the premise that anarchy is no hierarchy due to the writings of a few individuals. Even though it does not make much sense they still think that is a logical argument against people using the term anarchism in reference to being anti-state.

The main argument is that a type of property is an individuals "means of production". He goes on to quote godwin by saying that he is referencing wage labour in the argument that men should be able to keeps all the fruits of their labour. I have not read godwin but I do find it interesting that an godwin makes and argument against being an employee and against renting and interest. Why is there no mention of an argument against taxation and not wage labour. These concepts of property also comes from a time when we did not have private land ownership like we have today.

Then he goes on to claim that "real" anarchists do not just criticize the state but criticize even basic hierarchy structures. He then makes the claim that it makes no sense to criticize the state based on a liberty violation but turn a blinds eye to "tyrannical authoritarian institutions relationships that flow through modern society", this based on the graphics i assume he is referring to private companies and media. He makes the false claim that anarcho capitalism turns a blinds eye to fraud in the private sector. So his argument is that an cap make no sense because they are hypocrites who ignore private sector dominance and only focus on the government. Again the focus on hierarchy in general over a focus on the state. A distorted view of property ownership and labour results in the anti-capitalist mind set.

This whole idea that authoritarian institutions could very well be your local starbucks or local laundromat and not only restricted to the state is in some ways a great way to neutralize resistance against the state. If you can get people to be against a generality or a fiction, you can at least divert their attention from the state as a problem. I find it strange how these "real" anarchists are far more likely to criticize capitalism than they are the state. Surely if they were realy against hierarchy they would be against the state primarily, seeing as the state has the largest hierarchy influence on the population. This is why it makes me think this whole movement is realy a type of counter intelligence against anti-statist philosophy. To try by means of corrupting language, change the meaning of words to another meaning. That way by the time people come across the information they are so confused they just ignore it and carry on going.

If anything anarchism means the freedom of voluntary association. This means that someone is free to be against all types of hierarchy in an anarchist society, if that is what they want to do. Some one is also free to engage in hierarchy if that is what they want to do. Any thing other wise could not claim to be anarchism because that would be a contradiction.

As long as you are stuck in the statutory law mindset, then you will forever identify law with rulers. Common law shares some similarities with statutory law. In both, there is someone declaring what the law will be for everyone. In one it's the legislature, in the other it's the judiciary. In my opinion common law is more desirable than statutory law, but it is not ideal. I consider mediation to be the ideal. However, private law does not have to be like common law. Some libertarians on this board seem to associate private law with common law, but it is not necessarily the case.

Either way, law enforcement is not equivalent to a system with rulers.

Forgive me for failing to comprehend the meaning or relevance of your response. I don't see how it undermines my premise that violent morals-enforcers are rulers regardless of whether they claim a banner labeled statism or anarchism.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

Now of course we've butted heads before so I know you're far too intelligent to be confused on a matter this painfully simple. Is there a chance you're using erroneous or anomalous definitions? Like I said, what are violent morals-enforcers if not rulers?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

I've encountered you before so I know you're far too intelligent to be confused on a matter this painfully simple. Is there a chance you're using erroneous or anomalous definitions? Like I said, what are violent morals-enforcers if not rulers?

Law enforcement is equivalent to law enforcement. Most law does fall under some sort of ruler/ruled relationship, but not all law. Many libertarians on this board seem to support a variation of common law - that you can sign a piece of paper saying that you agree to whatever the judge rules and you must abide by the decision or else. In this case, I completely agree with you that this is a system of rulers, albeit on a much lesser scale than a statutory system of law.

However, that is not law per se. There are others on this board who talk about judges fulfilling the role of mediator. Instead of ruling in favor of one party or the other, the mediator helps the parties resolve the dispute nonviolently. This doesn't mean that all disputes will be resolved nonviolently, but then it is outside the scope of law.

Violent relationships cannot be eliminated entirely. The people that want to settle disputes with nonviolence will choose law. Those who prefer violence will not, but then they get exactly what they wanted, a violent resolution. That's a quick path to becoming an outlaw.

You've moved from intellectual dishonesty (obfuscating the issue) to outright dishonesty. You didn't answer my question directly, you ignored it. I asked you about definitions, not about your opinions regarding the alleged thoughts of others on matters of law. A direct answer will be about the definition of ruler and whether yours conforms to the usually-accepted one, taking into account my charge that a violent morals-enforcer is a ruler in the common sense. Again:

What unusual definition of ruler are you invoking whereby a violent morals-enforcer isn't a ruler?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

Yes, private law will be just like statism. Probably worse in many respects. But the OP is the wrong way to approach this topic. The proper approach is: private firms will still use violence based on the worst terms that society can be pushed to accept at any given time. The main difference is the violence will be used to defend moral system X instead of moral system Y. And to the extent they use courts, perfectly arbitrary judgments will be made which is no improvement over the arbitrary court systems we already have.

You are the person asserting that advocates of private law will rely upon morals enforcers instead of law enforcers. In a very real sense, there isn't law "enforcement" in private law. Disputes that are settled by violence are settled outside the law in a private law society. So, you have a choice to make:

You can drop this "morals enforcement" and debate the legal system that advocates of private law actually support, or

You can continue to obfuscate the issue by claiming falsely that advocates of private law support "morals enforcement".

If you continue to choose option 2, then it is you who is intellectually dishonest. Advocates of private law support rulerless law, and I have already explained above what kind of law can be had without rulers. You have ignored this, insisting that we talk about morals enforcement. Well, morals enforcement is irrelevant to private law. Do not ascribe to advocates of private law the desire for morals enforcement.

It is intellectually dishonest to attribute "morals enforcement" to anarchy. Under private law, if a dispute is settled with law, then the parties to the dispute have settled the dispute nonviolently without rulers. If the dispute is settled without law, then at least one disputant refuses to settle nonviolently.

I believe that Hashem is correct here, although I have never understood the disdain which he seems to have towards anarcho-capitalism. Whenever one person uses force against another person to restrict their action you have someone who is exercising their ability to rule (to control or dominate) another person. It is the lowest level of law which one can sink down to such that it's barely even worth calling the law enforcer a "ruler" but he is still a ruler. It is even a poly-centric leadership or dominion, but it is still a system where there are rulers and there are rules. It is important to note that unless we can change human nature itself there is no alternative to this.

@Anenome

You're allowed to choose what laws you get to live under up to a point but I can't choose a law system where I get to jack everyone else's stuff and they're not allowed to do anything. It might maximize freedom but it doesn't give each individual perfect freedom; each individual must respect others and in this way they are ruled. This isn't a bad thing. The alternative is... ANARCHYYY!!! D:

At last those coming came and they never looked back
With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...

Considering the definition you linked to, I might as well just repost my original comment to you:

gotlucky:

As long as you are stuck in the statutory law mindset, then you will forever identify law with rulers. Common law shares some similarities with statutory law. In both, there is someone declaring what the law will be for everyone. In one it's the legislature, in the other it's the judiciary. In my opinion common law is more desirable than statutory law, but it is not ideal. I consider mediation to be the ideal. However, private law does not have to be like common law. Some libertarians on this board seem to associate private law with common law, but it is not necessarily the case.

Either way, law enforcement is not equivalent to a system with rulers.

Your confusion here is that you think private law has "morals enforcers". This is not the case. It's a red herring. Even the police do not have the same role as they do in statist law. There is a reason why libertarians advocate Private Defense Agencies instead of Law Enforcement Agencies.

I believe that Hashem is correct here, although I have never understood the disdain which he seems to have towards anarcho-capitalism. Whenever one person uses force against another person to restrict their action you have someone who is exercising their ability to rule (to control or dominate) another person. It is the lowest level of law which one can sink down to such that it's barely even worth calling the law enforcer a "ruler" but he is still a ruler. It is even a poly-centric leadership or dominion, but it is still a system where there are rulers and there are rules. It is important to note that unless we can change human nature itself there is no alternative to this.

Hashem's confusion here is that private law is not about enforcing one view over another. As I posted originally here, Hashem is correct insofar as there are many libertarians here who advocate a variation of common law where the judge makes a ruling. But there are people here, such as Clayton, who advocate that the role of judge be that of mediator. The judge is meant to help resolve the dispute between the parties. If the parties do not resolve the dispute nonviolently, that is that they do not use the process of law, then it is outside the scope of private law. Whoever is the victor does rule over the other, but that is not within the scope of private law. It's not even law.

But that defies the idea that one can violently defend one's own property. While I suppose they could be reduced, private law and private mediation would appear to be two different things because while one is overarching the other is personal.

At last those coming came and they never looked back
With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...

You can violently defend your property. If A steals X from B, then they have a dispute. They can either resolve the dispute violently or nonviolently. The whole point of using law as a mechanism for resolving disputes is to avoid further violence. This is true for any system of law. In the current statutory system of law, the state steps in and threatens A with violence. The state and A can either resolve the dispute without further violence and go to a court of (statutory) law, or they can resolve it with violence and shoot it out. In today's statutory system, A can reject the nonviolently achieved resolution with the state at anytime, but then he will face the full wrath of the state. Most defendants, guilty or not, choose to accept the resolution instead of going to war with the state.

In private law, A and B go to a court of (private law), which would be a mediator. The whole point of going to a court of law is to resolve the dispute without further violence. At any time, either party can reject this and resort to violent conflict. But that is not using law to resolve the dispute.

Ok, so the unusual definition of law you're invoking is about a system of rules that aren't enforced. Why didn't you just say that? I would like to see that and as I've said in other threads I expect humanity to achieve something like that some day. Of course this has nothing to do with what is almost universally meant by law (which implies enforcement), and which is what most people who advocate so-called anarchism are talking about and consequently why they're advocating statism under a new name.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

I can see that you did not read the link I provided. The definition you link to is only a relatively recent definition of law, where law is associated with the state. Not only is it an inadequate explanation of what law actually is, it leads to this absurd bias where law can only be statist. Nevermind systems of law like the Somali Xeer, your definition also excludes even talking about the Laws of Chess, which are more than just the rules of the game itself. Your definition also does not allow for guild laws.

Whoever wants to be apart of a guild must abide by the laws of the guild. Whoever wants to compete through the World Chess Federation must abide by the laws of FIDE. These are not aggressive laws. And these are not considered laws by the inadequate definition you linked to. Clayton quotes and provides a far more adequate definition of law, one that is not linked to statism.

As I said, as long as you are stuck in your statist mindset, then you will forever identify law with rulers.

hashem:

Ok, so the unusual definition of law you're invoking is about a system of rules that aren't enforced. Why didn't you just say that?

First of all, that is not my definition of law. Sometimes I can't tell if you are just being a dick or dishonest. Seriously, you always introduce things like "you are confused" and "you are being dishonest". But why don't you try actually quoting my definitions instead of twisting them into something they are not.

Second of all, try reading the link I provided above. Clayton explains some of the history of law and quotes various sources, one of which is the state of Oregon explaining the history and purpose of law.

The definition that Clayton eventually provides is this:

Clayton:

So what is the law? Law is the alternative to violent conflict when conflict-avoidance strategies (such as property lines) have failed to avoid conflict. In terms of rights in property, law is the production of new, stipulated property-lines which resolve real conflicts without further violence.

You see, the benefit of this definition is that it encompasses all of the various systems of law, such as statutory law, common law, customary law, religious law, guild law, etc. Instead, you would have us limited to the modern use of law as an equivalent to statutory law. It's like when the communists define capitalism as requiring the state to exist. It's a biased definition of capitalism that allows for them to claim that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. Not only is it a biased definition, but it also neglects the important feature of capitalism, private ownership of capital. You can have state capitalism and you can have anarcho-capitalism. You can have statutory law, and you can have common law, customary law, etc.

But you beg the question when you define law as statist per se. Of course law is statist if you define it as statist.

I don't mean to be a dick, in fact I'm trying to keep you on track in as friendly a manner as possible so I apologize if you're getting the wrong vibe. Naturally, I apologize if you're talking about somethingn relevant and I'm failing to understand how. Obviously though, you can do your part to answer my questions directly—that is, by referencing words I use and responding to them.

So if I say "so-called" anarchists are pushing a system of violent morals enforcement. What are violent morals-enforcers if not rulers?", then we could have avoided all of this if you'd have responded, "While I concede that violent morals-enforcers are rulers, I instead advocate a type of anarchism dependent on laws that aren't enforced which therefore doesn't require rulers (nevermind how utopian it is)."

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

I don't mean to be a dick, in fact I'm trying to keep you on track in as friendly a manner as possible so I apologize if you're getting the wrong vibe. Naturally, I apologize if you're talking about somethingn relevant and I'm failing to understand how. Obviously though, you can do your part to answer my questions directly—that is, by referencing words I use and responding to them.

So if I say "so-called" anarchists are pushing a system of violent morals enforcement. What are violent morals-enforcers if not rulers?", then we could have avoided all of this if you'd have responded, "While I concede that violent morals-enforcers are rulers, I instead advocate a type of anarchism dependent on laws that aren't enforced which therefore doesn't require rulers (nevermind how utopian it is)."

Your attitude sounds a bit utopian to me. The point is people can indeed force you to do something, once it is proven in court that you're a savage lunatic. I don't care if you call that statist or whatever.

And the best kinds of courts are those where there profits are not guaranteed. If you disagree you have the right to live in your system, but statistically it seems inferior.

Like Neodoxy said, controlling others makes you a ruler, whether you accept that title or not. That has nothing to do with whether I do or don't support a system with rulers.

Let's say someone who I've never seen before tries to kill me, and I end up killing him in self-defense. By your reasoning, I was a ruler over him. Well, so be it - I'd be just fine with that kind of "rulership".

In a free society you'd get to choose what law set you want to live under.

Translation: in a so-called "free" (read: new statist) society, you get to choose your rulers.

No, there's no ruler. At all. How does choosing rules chose a ruler? A ruler makes rules over you. Thus, if you are choosing rules, YOU are your own ruler. That's what a free society should be, individual rule over the individual, ala the word 'autarchy'.

Then how is it that you advocate a system different than what we have now? You are free to accept private arbitration and aggressors (in this case the state) just take what they want? In my mind law needs to be a combination of what you're talking about and justifying violence in order to protect property.

At last those coming came and they never looked back
With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...

I believe that Hashem is correct here, although I have never understood the disdain which he seems to have towards anarcho-capitalism. Whenever one person uses force against another person to restrict their action you have someone who is exercising their ability to rule (to control or dominate) another person. It is the lowest level of law which one can sink down to such that it's barely even worth calling the law enforcer a "ruler" but he is still a ruler. It is even a poly-centric leadership or dominion, but it is still a system where there are rulers and there are rules. It is important to note that unless we can change human nature itself there is no alternative to this.

I disagree. Read on for my solution to this most important of problems.

Neodoxy:

@Anenome

You're allowed to choose what laws you get to live under up to a point but I can't choose a law system where I get to jack everyone else's stuff and they're not allowed to do anything. It might maximize freedom but it doesn't give each individual perfect freedom; each individual must respect others and in this way they are ruled. This isn't a bad thing. The alternative is... ANARCHYYY!!! D:

Let's imagine in the future that everyone gets to choose their own rules for themselves, and that everyone knows this, and so when person A goes to do business with person B, B naturally requests a mutual sharing of their personal rules (this is facilitated via online mechanism).

A shares and reads B and vice-versa, and at this point, B informs A that unless A drops his "right to steal" rule at least insofar as all contact and contract he has with B, B will refuse to do any business with him at all.

A has the choice to drop his "right to steal" law entirely or not at that point, or to give up that right in all his dealings with B. If he does not, then he can be justly prosecuted under the rules he chose for himself. All without any 'ruler' ever having shown his head.

This would be the penultimate of evolved law: each person choosing their ruleset to live by and inviting others to hold them to that standard.

So you see, yes, you would be able to choose for yourself a law that says that you can steal at will. But I picture a society where people allow you on their property only if they agree in the main with the law set you've chosen for yourself. They'd choose all their associations the same way.

So, someone choosing to let himself steal without consequences immediately finds himself marginalized in society. He can't get a job, can't find housing, can't even visit the nearby shopping mall--they stop him at the door, etc.

All that without anyone forcing him to accept a law against stealing. He experinces consequences relating to his personal acceptance of that law, and must choose how important it is to him.

Ultimately, finding himself unable to contract with anyone who will allow him to steal at will from them, he drops the rule and is finally able to buy food and lodging.

But imagine if someone did allow him to contract under that stealing provision? Would he still be prosecutable if he stole? Wouldn't that constitute person A and B in that scenario putting each others' property titles up for grabs? I suppose so.

Let's say someone who I've never seen before tries to kill me, and I end up killing him in self-defense. By your reasoning, I was a ruler over him. Well, so be it - I'd be just fine with that kind of "rulership".

Yes, that would make you a ruler—but because that's what ruler means, not because of my reasoning. Again, I'm not arguing for or against it (at least not here in this thread, yet), just pointing out what amounts to an inconsistency among self-proclaimed anarchists who advocate a system of enforced law.

I want to address the rest of your posts but I have to wait until I get home.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

Like Neodoxy said, controlling others makes you a ruler, whether you accept that title or not. That has nothing to do with whether I do or don't support a system with rulers.

Let's say someone who I've never seen before tries to kill me, and I end up killing him in self-defense. By your reasoning, I was a ruler over him. Well, so be it - I'd be just fine with that kind of "rulership".